On January 13, 2013, shortly after midnight, a motorist drove past a stationary police vehicle. As the motorist passed, police saw an illuminated cell phone screen for two or three seconds being held up in front of the driver with his right hand toward the middle of his SUV’s windshield. The police then followed the motorist but did not see anything unusual or out of the ordinary — other than the illuminated cell phone screen. No other traffic or pedestrians were in the vicinity. The police later stopped the motorist on the assumption that the driver could have been texting in violation of 75 P.S. §3316(a) (Prohibiting Text-Based Communications). The police also stopped the motorist because the way that the cell phone was being held could have obstructed the driver’s vision of the roadway. After the stop, the police detected an order of alcoholic beverage on the motorist’s breath and, when the motorist failed field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI.

The motorist challenged the lawfulness of the motor vehicle stop, claiming that the police lacked sufficient facts or cause to stop him in the first place. Erie DUI attorney Tim George questioned the police at the preliminary hearing and later filed a suppression motion in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. After a suppression hearing was held, the Court issued an opinion.

In the opinion, filed August 14, 2013, the Court explained why the police were not justified in stopping the motorist as follows:

As to the careless driving charge, it is evident that under the above said law that a violation either occurred or did not when the Defendant’s vehicle passed in front of the police car and therefore probable cause was necessary at the time of the stop. The facts clearly do not substantiate the conclusion on the violation of careless driving based upon the observation that the cell phone, as held, “could have” obstructed the driver’s view of the roadway. (Footnote omitted).

Similarly, whether or not the Defendant was in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code for engaging in prohibited text-based communications must have taken place during the two (2) or three (3) seconds the Defendant passed by the police. Further, investigation would not (and did not) substantiate this charge. (Footnote omitted). Therefore, probable cause was necessary for a stop based on this alleged violation as well. Clearly such was not present considering all of the uses to which the Defendant could have been engaged in with the cell phone under these facts. Even if one were to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard, the mere holding of a cell phone with a lit screen in the manner described cannot give rise to such, considering the myriad uses of a cell phone (calling, receiving a call, talking, listening to music, checking weather, time, contacts, calendar, navigation, applications, etc.). To conclude that the Defendant was texting is not reasonable but merely speculative and cannot constitute legal grounds to conduct a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle on a public roadway, especially where there is no other outward manifestation the motor vehicle code violation is or has occurred.

As a result of the Court’s decision, all evidence obtained after the motor vehicle stop was suppressed, including the evidence of intoxication which led to the DUI arrest. All charges were later dropped by the Commonwealth. The decision highlights the difficulty that police have enforcing 75 P.S. §3316(a) (Prohibiting Text-Based Communications), which bans all text-based communications but still allows motorists to use their cell phones in countless other ways without violating the law.

Tim George is a lawyer in Erie Pennsylvania who represents people in Erie, Warren, Venango, Clarion, and Meadville, Pennsylvania who face criminal charges or DUI allegations. Mr. George also represents people in catastrophic car accident, truck accident, or medical malpractice cases. You can schedule a private, no-obligation consultation by calling toll free (888) 748-9909.

No one plans on getting a DUI (driving under the influence). More often than not it is a genuine mistake on the part of the driver and an unfortunate one at that. It can be a hard lesson to learn, especially with how harsh the DUI laws in Pennsylvania are. If it is your first […] Read More

When fall is in full swing and winter on its way, road conditions can change with each rising and setting of the sun. From wet leaves to black ice, and from snow to large puddles on the road, there are plenty of different hazards that motorists need to be wary of when on the […] Read More

Mr. George and his entire office staff were very kind and helping me through my first ever experience with the law. He was able to get me exactly what he said he would in the outcome of my trial. The entire staff was very informative and kept me up to
date on everything. Very pleased with my experience and would most definately recommend him to others.